User Reviews

The term 'fourth estate' was coined in 1841 by philosopher Thomas Carlyle when he said that the Reporter's Gallery was far more important than the 'three estates' of parliament. This titbit of history tells us the battle lines over 'fake news' are as old as 'the press' itself. It is also the context for The Post (2017), a dramatic thriller and civics lesson about the media's role in checking government power. The Post shows why the media is despised by despots and is thus essential viewing for anyone wanting to better understand today's shambolic attacks on the media.

The facts of the story became world news. By the mid-1960s, most Americans were losing faith in the nation's prospects of an honourable conclusion to three decades of conflict in Vietnam. While various Presidents told Americans that success was assured, the top-secret Pentagon Papers revealed that national policy was based on a litany of lies. Former military analyst Daniel Ellsberg notoriously leaked the Papers to the New York Times, but publication was suppressed by court order. The rival Washington Post acquired a copy and had to decide whether to publish and risk the paper's future, or not publish and lose the respect of its journalists.

A dramatic high-tension wire is strung between Post heiress and socialite Katherine Graham (Meryl Streep) and her hard-core news editor Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks). They are polar opposites: she is a darling of the establishment, uncertain of her ability and fearful of losing not only the business but her social standing. Bradlee is a truth-seeking journalist who mistrusts lawyers and would publish at any cost. Described as "the most highly classified documents of the war", the President commands an army of lawyers threatening Armageddon if the paper goes to print. The film's period set design is brilliant: the reporter's room is a galley of buzzing typewriters and the printing press a mechanical maze of oiled steel grinding out papers in a frantic atmosphere of unrelenting deadlines. Against this background, the pre-feminist newspaper owner must make a decision that could bring down a President. When the choice is made, the Post must then face presidential retaliation via the Supreme Court.

This story requires no narrative embellishment, nor does it need dramatic performances to convey the high-stakes of an extraordinary moment. The casting of stars and support is excellent. Streep and Hanks give their most understated performances of recent times; no other contemporary actors could have filled these roles with their authority and authenticity. Spielberg's direction keeps the events unfolding at a brisk pace to leverage the tension curve upwards while sticking close to the facts. This is masterful storytelling based on an important event that resonates into the modern era.

Spielberg's new drama about the controversial publication of the Pentagon Papers by the Washington Post and New York Times is a well-made and entertaining, albeit not perfect, film. Tom Hanks gives a thorough and enjoyable performance as Ben Bradlee, but it is Meryl Streep who truly stands out in the cast here through her role as Kay Graham. Bob Odenkirk's supporting role is also noteworthy in a very positive sense.

The film is thoroughly gripping, although it sometimes feels paced slightly clumsily through omissions of details that could have been better to include as Spielberg presents the audience with the turbulent politics of the Vietnam era that lead to the intense legal and ideological controversies surrounding the Pentagon Papers. Additionally, a rushed--albeit still very enjoyable--third act makes the viewer feel that the film's running time is a bit too short. The film is an enjoyable watch in a way that other journalism films like "All The President's Men" and "Spotlight"--while better films overall for sure--are not, but its tone is handled well throughout. If Spielberg's dramas have taught me one thing, it's that he clearly knows how to let a specific tone manifest itself throughout the course of a narrative and do that well. The film contains a few moments that feel a bit 'meh' (a very clichéd rather than powerful discussion of the importance of freedom of the press in the second half is one.) While it has neither the high emotional stakes and dramatic tension of "Bridge of Spies" or the clockwork precision of "Lincoln," it is still a very well-acted and entertaining film that I do recommend. 7/10

I have always been a sucker for a good newspaper film, and 'The Post' is one of the best.

Living in the D. C. area since 1987, The Post has been a fixture in my life.

Being a moderate Republican married for 25 years into a family whose business is being elected every two years to the U. S. Congresss, I was privelaged to have a front row seat and sometimes a back stage pass to talk with Congressional leaders and 4 U. S. Presidents.

In addition, I sat in on occasional press conferences, interviews, and off the record discussions.

In my own business, I have been interviewed multiple times by the WP as a SME on business matters.

I haven't always agreed with the Post's political editorial opinions, and I can attest first hand that reporters attempt to get the story right, but don't always quote verbatim when the subject matter is not of national security or similar level of importance.

Newspapers still operate on a journalistic level in fact checking and verification - there are rare exceptions and those are likely discovered at some point, so imo the esssence of newspaper journalism as it's taught in school is still alive and kicking...Television and tabloid journalism on the other hand has for the most part, become an entertainment industry and is devoid of such checks and balances as two source verifications, etc. It has become an opinion editorial broadcast to a great degree. It's what brings in the advertising dollars - big bucks.

PBS News Hour's Judy Woodruff and the late/great Jim Lehrer are perhaps the last TV journalist/news anchors to avoid coloring and opining their broadcasts, leaving the op ed element to panel opinion discussions where it belongs.

That all being said, The Post is a throw back to the days when journalists were still driven by standards and ethics. What they taught in journalism school was to a great degree being manifested in the newspaper rooms.

Katherine Graham inherited the paper and with Ben Bradley (the "pirate") running the operation, has a decision to make on running a story on the Rand Corporation/Pentagon 20-year ongoing research program of the viability of involvement in SE Asia, and U. S. chances of winning the Vietnam War.

Top secret documents are involved and the right for newspapers to report on such leaked documents, showing that every President from Truman to Nixon knew that it would be - a war we could never win.

Spielberg does a very good job of bringing the drama of this and the decision Graham must make to publish even at the risk of putting the then barely solvent paper out of business and those involved into jail.

Her place as a woman who inherited this three generation family business that operates in the men's club of newspaper journalism is obviously the back story and Streep plays it totally low key and true to Graham's sense of the moment and transformation evolving by necessity from her insider Washingtonian socialite origins, to the power inherent in being Owner of a publishing center-of-influence that requires "making the tough decisions" (and despite those decisions sometimes being in disagreement with the paper's long-time male executive team and trusted advisors).

As always a great performance by Streep, as was Hanks' and the entire cast - Spielberg's ability to communicate what he envisions and needs from the actor in each scene, backed by his intuitive directing style, brings out actors' best instincts - it always has.

Spielberg holds nothing back in tapping into his deep refined set of film making skills, tapping his influences Hitchcock and Bergman in camera work and scene structure. It is a true work of art we are witnessing in 'The Post'. Like Streep is to acting, Spielberg is held to a higher standard than today's mere mortal film makers. This means Stephen and Streep are unlikely to take home hardware, but this film could easily win best "everything" if it were not for their stature (success-penalty alert).

Was it good enough for the elite actors and director to win Oscars in a great year for film? Maybe, but I'm guessing Chastain or Robbie for Lead Actress, Oldman for Lead Actor, Plummer for Supporting Actor and Janney for Supporting actress take the hardware home. Streep put forth the best performance of the year though, regardless of who actually takes home the hardware. She is simply the best actor alive and this was a great performance.👏

Haven't screened Phantom Thread yet by the way - that could change things, but unlikely regarding Streep.

Should you see this movie? ABSOLUTELY! Of course, I LOVE newspaper movies! And this is a VERY good one. Not up to "Spotlight" (best-ever newspaper film), but equal to 'All the President's Men" - it's a very good movie, with a share of thrilling moments mixed into it's successful mission to capture the moment when a local newspaper became an influential national paper, with a then unheard-of woman as it's Admiral making the toughest of business and journalistic decisions, and a pirate as its Captain to pull it off.

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED 👍👍

The latest Steven Spielberg film "The Post" is a nice showcase of the real life 1970's battle between government and journalist which would go to the highest court in the land(The U.S. Supreme Court). The film shows how information is uncovered and leaked about the highly criticized "Vietnam War".

All of us want freedom of speech and freedom of press, and us as people expect the news media to give it to us and when documents are uncovered by people in the press which exposes cover up and lies from many previous presidents, you feel relieved and mad also. And with this picture it shows the process of how to investigate and publish hard hitting truth even if it means to challenge the powers that be.

That's what "The Washington Post" did as the owner a powerful woman in Kay Graham(a wonderful Meryl Streep)put it all on the line with the help of a powerful and well know editor in Ben Bradlee(the good Tom Hanks). As anything worth exposing and challenging is worth a fight for as it makes the powerful upset and angry.

Overall this picture is a must watch for political history buffs also as it shows how the ever on going war between media and government began and how it became a political dogfight for each and all involved. Proving that accountability is needed for all.

"The Post" arrives to remind us about the indispensable role of the press in a democracy, ours in this particular case. An historical fact that comes to illustrate the dangerous times we're living now. The story of The Pentagon Papers is not ancient history and yet people seem to have forgotten. Americans in their 20's don't know about it as they didn't know about the House Of UnAmerican Activities. Education is at the center of our future so thank you Steven Spielberg for contributing to the awakening. In "The Post" the economy of the retelling is part of its brilliance. Tom Hanks as Ben Bradlee is not Jason Robards but a Hanks, profoundly human, version of the man and Meryl Streep - Oh Meryl Streep ! - gives life to a woman who was not used to be the center of attention. A daughter a wife never in charge. Her dilemma is the sort of dilemma that, artists, teachers, parents, often confront. Her process to arrive to her decision is immensely moving and real. One of the miracles that Meryl Streep manages to perform again and again is that one forgets that it is her a second after she appears on the screen. I know this is a film I see again and show to youngsters at every possible opportunity. Thank you for that.

Is it cliché to call this movie an Oscar cliché?

Even if the answer is yes, that's The Post, in a nutshell. It hits all the right beats. Serious historical drama (it covers a newspaper contemplating printing government lies about the Vietnam War), mega-famous director (Spielberg), and beloved, award-winning stars (Streep and Hanks). To top it all off, this movie is timely. A movie about newspaper courage at a time when our nation's free press is under attack, it's almost too perfect. Delicately arrange all these ingredients nicely on a fancy dish, and we should have a five-star meal. But we do not. Instead, the result is something that is just fine. It's a lower-middle class version of Spotlight.

That likely reads harsher than I intend it. Spotlight is incredible. Mentioning any movie in the same breath is an honor. The Post is a perfectly adequate, important movie, not a Best Picture winner. There's no shame in that.

There's very little blatantly wrong with the movie. Grading via a high school-style rubric would result in an A for following all the instructions and including all the required criteria. Yet, it does not quite reach the level of "WOW."

Figuring out why it doesn't "WOW" is tricky. Maybe shooting and editing a movie that quickly (reportedly completed in only a few months) is too tall a task even for a master like Spielberg.

Tom Hanks and Meryl Streep play the leading roles and do so fantastically. Streep is especially strong in capturing the hesitancy of a woman in charge who doesn't act like she's in charge. This is the other element that's important for 2018. Women can lead effectively and bravely. She slowly learns that she is fully capable of seizing control and making the tough decisions, just like any successful leader.

The supporting actors all likewise play their roles well, without exception. Everyone feels a bit underutilized, which I suppose they understood when they accepted the parts. The inclusion of so many famous faces could be viewed as a statement emphasizing the importance of the film.

While I mentioned that there is very little blatantly wrong with the movie, I did personally find certain parts troublesome. Specifically, I call attention to the beginning and ending. Without spoiling anything, they felt oddly out of place, or at the very least, they felt unnecessary.

Perhaps Spielberg included them to make clearer the message of the movie. He wanted to establish the stakes. I didn't think we needed that. Movie viewers are smart enough to understand what makes this movie important. Thankfully, the movie avoided becoming overly preachy, aside from a couple sigh-worthy instances.

If you're down for a textbook "important history lesson" movie, The Post is for you. Just don't expect to leave the theater in stunned silence, like you did after seeing Spotlight.

Economic, specific, brilliant. That should be enough to sing the praises of a work of art but in "The Post" there is more. much more. We can't ignore the fact imposed by the historical moment we're living right now. The press under attack. Belittled, insulted but not ignored. No, never that. Steven Spielberg puts everything at the service of the story and the magic stroke is Meryl Streep. She creates a real life woman again, after Margaret Thatcher, Julia Childs, Lindy Chamberlain and once again she creates a fully fledged human being and this time she plays a woman without a known voice until she finds it and when she does, she uses it. I'm absolutely transfixed and moved very moved by her performance

In 1971, The New York Times has access to classified documents about the Vietnam War. However, the government uses the justice department to stop the distribution of newspapers claiming violation of the national security laws. Immediately after, the Washington Post has access to similar documents but they decide to face the government and publish the newspapers against the will of their lawyers and investors.

"The Post" is a film directed by Steven Spielberg with the battle between the press and Nixon´s government in 1971. The performances of Meryl Streep and Tom Hank are top-notch as usual and the dramatization of the situation is suspenseful. The truth about the Vietnam War is probably painful for the American people that lost their sons to hypocrite governments. However the right of free press without financial interest from the government seems to be utopic at least in the present days. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "The Post: A Guerra Secreta" ("The Post: The Secret War")

Print media may be dead, but the crusader journalist movie is alive and well. "The Post" is just as much a paean to the newspaper's heyday as it is a warning against corrupt government, complete with top-shelf cast. Given the Washington Post's lasting legacy (to this day), you can easily tell that the Pentagon Papers weren't the certain doom they seemed to spell out for the paper. Yet Spielberg jumps right into the material, creating excitement even in mundane printing press scenes. This is a stirring tale, masterfully directed and timelier than ever. Sure, it's probably Oscar-bait, but you can't argue with that level of quality.

8/10

I enjoyed this movie. It must be kept in mind this is a movie, a drama and not a documentary. As such, this is a good movie. The pace is good and we follow the events and decisions that had to be made. Meryl Streep shows why she wins Oscars, the self-doubt and hesitation that she portrays was a masterful performance. Tom Hanks' character was serviceable and pretty one note, and the only nice character turn was near the end after speaking to his wife about the heroics of Streep's character.

A number of people said the movie was too preachy and was worried about that before seeing the movie. I didn't find that at all after watching the movie. Yes, verses a documentary, this movie did have a theme and message, but I knew what this movie was about freedom of the press before going to see it. I grew up in that time period, so I knew the outcome also.

Incredible cast, right down to the small parts. But the film is heavy-handed to the point of ham-fisted, from the opening scene onwards. Mr Spielberg needed to have greater faith in his audience, and let the moments in the script breathe, rather than cutting to yet another brief shot of expository detail. The film is trying to be a kind of parable of feminist empowerment -- Katharine Graham finally comes into her own and she receives admiring and supportive glances from women all over! -- without realising that Katharine Graham was, from the start, smart and tough as hell. This could have been such a great film, if Spielberg had only trusted his writers, his audience, and his cast.

Steven Spielberg, with Jeff Skoll's activist Participant Media bankrolling his projects, has been on a kick for sentimental "Great Progressive Moments in History" epics with Lincoln and Bridge of Spies. However, this has to be his least emotionally invested project since "The Terminal". The trailer for this film just screamed "I'm making this for the Oscars" with its main theme of freedom speech from almost 50 years ago made in an era when we once again have a president and press embattled and starring two - count em - multiple Oscar winners. But then Speilberg gets shut out at the Oscars. He gets a Best Picture nomination nod only because there are ten slots available. Make it nine and this would likely not have made the cut.

So I watch the film and my worse suspicions are validated. Tom Hanks plays Ben Bradlee of the Washington Post, Meryl Streep plays Katharine Graham, owner of the Washington Post. The whole film has to do with the question - to print or not to print the information derived from the Pentagon Papers, government documents that show that from the 1950s the American government knew they could not win in Vietnam but continued to send American young men out to die in vain. But there is an injunction against the New York Times for publishing this same information, and the case is headed to the Supreme Court in a week. But the story gets muddled between two issues - first, the screenplay keeps getting off track with the female empowerment storyof Katharine Graham, a woman to the manor born who never had to work or worry a day in her life until her husband died and she was left the titular head of the Post. She doesn't quite know how to handle the old white male investors who talk down to her or the decisions that are now hers to make. Second, what EXACTLY is Tom Hanks doing with this role? Is he trying to be Ben Bradlee or is he trying to portray Jason Robards as Ben Bradleee with that obviously fake gravelly voice and pot belly? Instead he seems to be doing a killer Lou Grant.

"The Post" does manage to have some nice tense newsroom scenes, some legal decision suspense as everyone is reminded just how vindictive Richard Nixon can be, but all of the other stuff I mentioned overrides it. Oh, and is there anything more dramatic than the rolling of an old time newspaper press? But just how old time is this film trying to go? "All The President's Men" was set the year after this film is set - 1971 -yet this Washington Post newsroom looks like something out of 1940's "His Girl Friday" with the old Royal typewriters, dingy walls, and poor lighting. And you'd think that the director of "Lincoln" could capture the national confusion and outrage when the public first discovered the government had been lying to them, but no, other than a few protesters outside of the Supreme Court - zip, zilch, nada. The Judd Apatow comedy film "Anchorman" did a better job of depicting public outrage when Ron Burgundy accidentally profanes San Diego's name.

Oh, and the punchline - the final scene is Nixon raving against the Washington Post as a security guard stumbles into the break in at the DNC one year before it actually happened. Since this is reminiscent of the same scene in Forrest Gump, also starring Hanks, is it time for a face palm or applause at the anachronistic irony of the situation? Mildly recommended because, hey, who doesn't love Tom Hanks? Just too bad that nobody showed up to direct the film. An editor would have helped too.

I'm a sucker for any movie that involves close-ups of newspapers being printed, but this story was particularly well told - as polished as you would expect from Spielberg, Streep, Hanks and co. It was funny and enthralling and just plain solid storytelling. In fact, Spielberg even managed to tone back his over-the-top-ness. There are few moments where odes of love to the press could be more important. So while there are flaws here (in pacing and in storytelling devices), this is as entertaining and informative of a Saturday night as you could ask for.

Much to my surprise, I found Spielberg's account of the Washington Post's constitutional battle with the Nixon Administration over the Post's audacious and impulsive decision to publish the leaked Pentagon Papers in 1971 to be mildly prosaic and detached. It definitely lacks the raw drama it was obviously angling for and key scenes came across as tentative and sloppy.

Despite an impactful, committed performance by Meryl Streep as Katharine Graham, the publisher of the Washington Post who helped crush gender barriers in journalism and a lively turn by Tom Hanks as the brash and swaggering Ben Bradlee, editor of the Post, this film suffers from a lack of depth and a surprisingly scattershot approach to the story by Spielberg. A viewer would be forgiven for coming away with a flawed understanding of the Pentagon Papers because the film is more about how the Washington Post came into national prominence by defying the White House in publishing documents the government claimed as top secret and vital to U.S. military success in Vietnam.

Some might argue that this film should be watched and evaluated more deliberately but when Spielberg himself rushed through the material and the filmmaking process, it's harder to claim that the viewer has missed something. With this much proven talent on both sides of the camera, haste makes waste. Not recommended.

If you lived through Vietnam and have read and seen the material in the aftermath (including Ken Burns' incredible documentary), there seems little doubt that our leaders were at the center of the deaths of thousands of our dear sons and daughters. From Truman to Eisenhower to Kennedy/Johnson to Nixon, image was what it was all about. The tapes and phone conversations prove this. So when Daniel Ellsberg delivered those damning documents to the New York Times, he brought down evil. Nixon had the world by the butt and overreached. So what about this movie. I have to agree that it wasn't as good as I thought it was going to be. Despite portrayals by real troopers and a masterful performance by Streep, it had a kind of yawn factor. Somehow, there seemed little suspense. Of course, we knew the story, but it never picked up much steam. It needed fine tuning. An interesting continuing commentary in IMDB is the use of a movie forum to perpetuate a soapbox. But to give this film a one or two because it shows the parallels of that time with the one we are living in, is counter to the whole point of reviewing. Anyway, I thought it was a reasonably thoughtful portrayal of a time when government got bigger than it should have.

'The Post' had a lot going for it. A great cast, that it was directed by Steven Spielberg (who directed a lot of great films and several childhood favourites) and an intriguing subject, such a lot could have gone right here. A lot actually is done right but not everything, found a lot to admire but it didn't quite click as an overall whole. Can see why it has been so positively reviewed but can also see why it has not worked for others.

What makes it especially worth watching is the cast. On paper there was a lot of talent in the first place and there is some truly great work here. Impeccable in the case of commanding Tom Hanks and a typically powerful turn from Meryl Streep as the most fully rounded character, then again usually one wouldn't expect anything less from actors of such high calibre. Bob Odenkirk's nuanced contribution is the standout of the supporting cast, while Carrie Coon and Matthew Rhys are also strong.

It is a well made film visually, made with grit, slickness and style and with an audaciously evocative period setting. While not one of his best or most memorable works, and it won't go down as an iconic score, John Williams' music is a clever mix of lush orchestral themes and a more sparse electronic tone that adds a suitably unsettling vibe. Spielberg shows signs of capable direction, while the second half is thrilling and suspenseful.

'The Post' is at its most successful in its portrayal of gender inequality and that some of the decisions made were difficult ones to make and how and why they were made and enforced. The script does have enough thought-provoking moments to keep one gripped.

Against all this some of the story is heavy-handed and hammers home its points too much, the exaggeration of the Washington Post's involvement was a prime example. The pace is uneven, the first half did need a fair bit of tightening up and felt too calculated while there is also a rushed feel to the film (perhaps for it to be released in time for awards season), particularly in how interesting and important themes and ideas were glossed over and not fully explored and there is some carelessness at times to Spielberg's directing.

Contrivances and a too talky and too on-the-nose approach is apparent in some of 'The Post's' script in primarily the first half, while the too tonally soft and lacking in dramatic integrity conclusion seemed at odds with the rest of the film.

In summation, an intriguing and worthwhile film but to me it was an uneven one. 6/10 Bethany Cox

I was a kid during the Pentagon Papers and Watergate. I always looked up to Kay Graham as a woman of fortitude. This film has her restraining from being the woman I read about. However, I feel like this experience was the impetus of her awakening to her strength. I loved Streep's vulnerability and growth throughout the film. She is masterful in her ability to convey several emotions at the same time. Ben Bradley played by Tom Hanks was so juicy. Loved his portrayal of this balls to the walls man of steel. Hanks truly shines. His speech about Jackie after the death of JFK touched me and brought a tear to the eye. Spielberg is just a Master of film. He can make you sit on the edge of your seat because he uses the camera to take you in the film. His style is so sophisticated. The actors are not just characters but the film is a character too. Spielberg is always moving the camera to set us in the story. Bonus is John Williams composed the music. The music is outstanding and is so compelling. Such a great Master of the art. Spielberg and Williams is always genius working together. So if you don't see this on the big screen, you will regret it. We sat in a packed theatre today and you could hear a pin drop! I knew the story when I walked in, likeI said I was kid at the time , but this picture made wish I paid more attention to politics when I was younger. If Spielberg makes a Watergate follow up movie with the same cast, it would be a HUGE hit. This is from a woman who can quote All the President's Men by heart. Please let it be... I would be first in line to see Spielberg's own take on Watergate!!

When I first saw this I came away having enjoyed it, but couldn't help a feeling similar to that I had about Bridge Of Spies - that it was a little thin, perhaps a little less weighty than the subject matter deserves. That doesn't go away on this viewing - Spielberg's sentimentality is on full display, his palpable affection for the mechanics of old-school newspaper printing and publishing at once both touching and occasionally cloying. It does move along more briskly than I remember and is undoubtedly entertaining; the star-laden cast does well, though I'm not sure Hanks and Streep are the ideal leads for this film. That's not a criticism of their performances - more that it just feels as if they're not quite comfortable in what they're being asked to do. Also, and for me it shares this with Spotlight, I often find there's a degree of self-importance to films about journalism, and idealism that may sometimes be necessary but I do find a little much. There's a few Sorkin-esque walk and talks that work well, and the breezy tone means it's never less than engaging, though.

Which is why this movie is so controversial almost fifty years after the fact, and why you see so many reviews express hostility to the real life "Washington Post" rather than addressing the merits of the story, the acting, the message, etc. My wife and I lived through the Nixon years in Washington, and the story so well told here is of determined and fearless professionals unafraid to challenge assaults on our liberties. As with "Spotlight," who knew you could milk so much drama out of folks typing madly away or pawing through stacks of paper? Or that the mighty vibration of a huge printing press starting up could be so moving? Despite nits, this story rings true on so many levels, emotional, dramatic, personal, historical, and I can think of lots worse ways for modern audiences to get an advanced education on the role of a Free press in a democracy.

All in all, The Post wasn't horrible, but it wasn't amazing either-it was just average. The movie did a good job of being clear, cohesive, and dramatic, but after watching the movie, I didn't have the feeling that I saw something special. My heart wasn't beating fast; I didn't feel unexplainable excitement while watching the movie. It was just good, not great.

Steven Speilberg hasn't wowed me in quite some time so I was hoping for something more from this effort. His latter films have produced great performances but not really the wholly engaging films that I seek. I also think Ready Player One looks fairly atrocious, so I was hoping The Post would at least be good. After viewing the film, I will say that I enjoyed this quite a bit. In a similar vein to Zodiac and Spotlight the film is areally smart craft (although not as thrilling).

The film is about the real life leaking of the Pentagon Papers, which detail the United States' involvement in Vietnam even prior to the Vietnam War. At the time the Washington Post is a small scale paper that gets a hold of the story and decides whether to leak the involvement or suffer the same fate of the New York Times who had their freedom of press threatened by then president Richard Nixon. Tom Hanks, Meryl Streep, and Steven Speilberg surprisingly all work together for the very first time.

The film is detailed and there are little intricacies within the plot that you can miss if your attention wanders. The film actually has many talented performers which is nice to see. Everyone here is good. Tom Hanks (the nice cool uncle you always wish you had) is typically good, same with Streep. I'm quite a fan of politically based drama's if they are done with attention, style, and substance. I feel like The Post brings that after a lukewarm start.

The film doesn't have the same knife edge tension like Zodiac, however there is strength in the script and delivery. Its intentional that this film is easily comparable to what is going on today and Trump's war on "fake news". I'm happy to say this is Speilberg's best film in a long time. Stay tuned at the end for a chilling reference to the Watergate scandal. And with that my pre-Oscar viewing extravaganza comes to a close. Good year in film.

7.5/10

It's not just the fascinating true story behind this quintessential battle for freedom of the press - coupled to freedom for women - that makes this movie outstanding. Nor is it the knockout performances of Streep, Hanks and frankly most of the other actors. Not even the message that references the governments of this era and all their wrongdoings is what really struck me. Most of all it is Spielberg his directing in ultima forma that gave me the greatest thrill. Long yet exciting shots and sequences, a perfect atmosphere of the times and super simple scenes that he directed to become almost thriller-like suspenseful... even when we already know the outcome! Yes, it has some flaws, such as the Spielberg-sugar at the end. Sure. But ultimately, this is a masterpiece.